Dharam Singh v. Aso And Another

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion addresses two connected matters arising from second appeals decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The parties are close relations and the dispute centers on the validity of a will said to have been executed by Santu in 1960. The will purportedly bequeathed the entire residential house and 4½ acres of agricultural land to the appellant, excluding Santu’s two daughters who were otherwise entitled to shares in the property.

The trial court held that the will was proved, relying on the statement of the registering authority and on decisions of the Lahore High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court. On appeal, the lower appellate court reversed, relying on two decisions of the Supreme Court. The High Court, in second appeal, concurred with the lower appellate court’s view.

The present appeal by special leave pertains to the agricultural property (Civil Appeal No. 841 of 1981). A separate special leave petition concerns the residential house and challenges a different second appeal judgment (S.L.P. No. 4758 of 1986).

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the will was duly proved in law, particularly when both attesting witnesses did not support its execution and the trial court relied on the statement of the registering authority; specifically, whether the Registrar could be treated as a statutory attesting witness.
2. How the claim to a share in the residential house by one of the plaintiffs should be disposed of in light of counsel’s concession made during the hearing before the Supreme Court.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

• The Court noted that both attesting witnesses did not support the execution of the will.
• The trial court had nonetheless found the will proved by relying on the registering authority’s statement and certain High Court decisions.
• The lower appellate court reversed that finding, relying on two Supreme Court decisions. Upon examining the record, the Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court and the High Court that the Registrar could not be a statutory attesting witness.
• On that basis, the conclusion that the will had not been duly proved could not be disturbed, necessitating dismissal of the appeal concerning the agricultural land (Civil Appeal No. 841 of 1981).
• Separately, during the hearing, the Court suggested that one of the plaintiffs, being married, should not claim a share in the residential house. Counsel for that plaintiff (Mr. Jain) agreed on instructions to a modification of the decree. Acting on this concession, the Court granted special leave in S.L.P. No. 4758 of 1986, allowed the appeal, set aside the decrees of the courts below, and dismissed the suit pertaining to her share in the residential house.
• The Court directed the parties to bear their own costs.

Holding and Implications

S.L.P. No. 4758 of 1986 ALLOWED: Special leave granted; appeal allowed; decrees of the courts below set aside; the suit concerning one plaintiff’s share in the residential house is dismissed based on counsel’s statement recorded during the hearing.

Civil Appeal No. 841 of 1981 DISMISSED: The will was not duly proved, as the Registrar could not serve as a statutory attesting witness and the attesting witnesses did not support execution.

Implications: The immediate effect is that the claim to the residential house by the concerned plaintiff stands dismissed, while the challenge regarding the agricultural property fails for want of due proof of the will. The opinion does not discuss broader legal implications beyond affirming the conclusion that the Registrar cannot be treated as a statutory attesting witness. Parties are to bear their own costs.